Amazinz wrote:A significant portion of our population lives in areas where public transportation is not feasible.

I wouldn't champion a reduction in the drinking age but I wouldn't vote against it either. If you're an adult at 18 in every other facet of our society than you should probably be an adult in this instance too even if it has a dark side.

I can't blame drunk driving orgs for fighting it though. I doubt it has anything to do with "teetotalism lifestyle". These people are from all walks of life.

so cars are feasible but buses aren't? Some kind of car service paid for by taxes on booze isn't? If you are talking trains, then fine, not always feasible. But there are programs that can be implemented.

I gotta disagree. some of these org's promote a ton of "responsbile drinking" and "don't drink or drive" but it doesn't seem like they do as much as they could to help people who have had too much to drink -- the ones they don't want driving.

It's one thing to say you don't believe it, but you can listen to their messages. They accuse colleges of "bad science" although their aversion to it is really a "think of the children" type argument. There are more logical reasons for it to be lower then there are the other side, considering the context of the debate.

lowering it to 19 seems like a logical first step to me. It mostly eliminates the ridiculous position colleges are put in while at the same time preventing instant access to HS youngsters via seniors if the age was 18. The next step would be to examine if college drinking patterns changed at all over 5-15 years and then asses if a further reduction makes sense. I think this is a politically feasible way to go about it, though in a vacuum i'd say 15-18 makes sense depending of what the social norms, customs, and laws regarding adulthood are.

I can only speak for myself and what I have experienced. I think the drinking age should be 18 for the simple fact that at 18 you are an adult and you can make your own choices and decisions (according to the law, we know this isn't always the case). We've all heard this argument so I won't go into detail.

With that said, I don't think introducing alcohol to kids at a younger age (like in Europe) is going to minimize or cut down on binge drinking with young adults/teens. When I go to a party (I am 24) I often see drinking games going on. When kids get together in a large social environment they aren't drinking a beer or two to relax and unwind, they are going to make something of it and that includes beer pong, flip cup, quarters, etc...These are all drinking games that cause people to get drunk very fast.

You have no frame of reference, Donny. You're like a child who walks into the middle of a movie...

great gretzky wrote:so cars are feasible but buses aren't? Some kind of car service paid for by taxes on booze isn't? If you are talking trains, then fine, not always feasible. But there are programs that can be implemented.

Transportation programs cost a lot of money. Sure there is always a program that can be implemented but someone has to pay for it. Raising the taxes on alcohol in order to fund social programs is not the answer.

Maine has a good swing for a pitcher but on anything that moves, he has no chance. And if it's a fastball, it has to be up in the zone. Basically, the pitcher has to hit his bat. - Mike Pelfrey

great gretzky wrote:so cars are feasible but buses aren't? Some kind of car service paid for by taxes on booze isn't? If you are talking trains, then fine, not always feasible. But there are programs that can be implemented.

Transportation programs cost a lot of money. Sure there is always a program that can be implemented but someone has to pay for it. Raising the taxes on alcohol in order to fund social programs is not the answer.

only problem, the drunk driving issue is a sliver of the need for public transportation. I mean this is unrelated, but more people should be investigating this anyway for other reasons.

And at any rate that is a side issue anyway. Fact is, all the other stuff you can do at 18 is pretty "adult" when you get right down to it, and a lot of the repercussions for things you can do are pretty major depending. So to single out booze like this to me, and have the discussion razed like it is every other time it comes up, to me, is bananas.

great gretzky wrote:so cars are feasible but buses aren't? Some kind of car service paid for by taxes on booze isn't? If you are talking trains, then fine, not always feasible. But there are programs that can be implemented.

Transportation programs cost a lot of money. Sure there is always a program that can be implemented but someone has to pay for it. Raising the taxes on alcohol in order to fund social programs is not the answer.

only problem, the drunk driving issue is a sliver of the need for public transportation. I mean this is unrelated, but more people should be investigating this anyway for other reasons.

On the aside, yes, there's an increasing need for public transportation. The problem isn't just who in the world is going to pay for it but some cities/areas aren't fitted for mass transit nor do they have a massive purpose for one. For example, L.A. has only two subway lines that lead up in two places. There has been heated discussion over the last few years to extend one of those lines from Downtown L.A., all the way down to the coast (Santa Monica). The problem is trying to reroute some of those gas and sewage lines around the proposed subway extension. The idea of urban living (only traveling within a 2-3 mile radius) is picking up steam here but it's still very much a foreign idea.

Expanding public transportation to escort drinkers to and from is great. There have been great free ride shuttle services for New Year's festivities from Metro buses, for instance. Another problem is picking up awareness that drinking patrons can ride on mass transit instead of driving. Even if the mass transit network can take you anywhere in any city/town/area, odds are they can be as inconvenient as perceivably convenient too.

It sucks that we didn't have people in the 50's and 60's who saw public transportation as essential to the future. European countries did and thus have a great public transportation system. Now, we don't have the money to overhaul the system so we're stuck with making do with what we have. The Twin Cities public transportation is horrible and nobody uses it because it's so inefficient. You have to literally live in the heart of the city to make it work for you. I live 10 minutes from downtown Mpls. and it takes 1 hour to get there on a bus. There are no buses within walking distance to my apartment that will take me Uptown or to downtown St. Paul. Plus, it costs 90 dollars a month to take the bus which would be fine if you didn't need to have a car but with the limited routes and buses barely going into the suburbs a car is almost essential in MN. I've had this discussion with other people and it sounds like other cities aren't much better.